Standing Committee E

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Communications Bill

John Whittingdale: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I wish to put on record the fact that preparation for this morning's sitting was made extremely difficult by the fact that yesterday Portcullis House was out of communication—the telephones, faxes and e-mail system did not work. The new sitting hours make it hard enough for us to prepare our work, but if we cannot receive information from outside, such preparation becomes almost impossible. I am almost tempted to ask you whether we can revisit clause 3 to insert a new requirement on Ofcom to put a boot up the backside of whoever looks after communications in Portcullis House.

Roger Gale: Happily, in this day of modern communications, that is not a function of the Chairman. However, I am sure that the House authorities will pay attention to the Official Report, which will have recorded the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
 I apologise to the Committee for the fact that we do not have a clock that works in the Room. Clearly, we should never have abolished the hourglass. Even in this day and age, I am far from achieving my wish as a member of the Chairmen's Panel to have electronic clocks in front of us. However, we shall press on regardless.

Clause 256 - OFCOM reports on the fulfilment of the public service remit

Nick Harvey: I beg to move amendment No. 465, in
clause 256, page 223, line 38, after 'services' insert 'and related internet information services'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 466, in
clause 256, page 224, line 11, after 'together)' insert 'and related internet information services'.

Nick Harvey: During Thursday afternoon's sitting, some members of the Committee referred several times to websites provided by broadcasters. The two amendments deal with that subject. If the major broadcasters are to develop expensive and high-quality websites and use them to promote their broadcasting stations and vice versa, it makes sense for Ofcom to be able to look at those websites as well as the broadcast services. Without strays greatly into regulation of the internet, Ofcom will be able to look at the production of the websites and the way in which they are used by the broadcast channels.
 The amendments deal with the purposes of public service television and the manner of fulfilling those 
 purposes. They would make it clear to broadcasters that the regulators will consider their online services as an integral part of their overall offerings. We must remember that such services are some of the most visited websites in the United Kingdom and that they benefit from the same privileges as the broadcast channels to which they relate, such as access to advertising markets, public ownership in the case of Channel 4, and the licence fee in the case of the BBC. We should therefore expect that those services will be used to market the brand of the broadcaster and to extend and complement the public service broadcasting role. Yesterday, when I saw the range of services offered by BBCi, it was hard to distinguish between that and television broadcasting. Will the Minister explain the Government's attitude towards extending Ofcom's role?

John Whittingdale: I give half a cheer to the amendments, but they stray into difficult territory. The Government have made it clear from the start that they do not think it appropriate that Ofcom should attempt to regulate internet content and, on balance, I do not consider it desirable either. Even if I did want that action to be taken, it would be almost impossible.
 Clearly, it would be possible to extend Ofcom's remit to cover the internet-based activities of licensed broadcasters, but I am uncomfortable with the idea that commercial broadcasters should be subject to regulation in this instance because they operate in a completely open and competitive market. Commercial broadcasters who produce television programmes do so on the basis of having obtained a licence to operate within a limited spectrum area. The price of that licence should be regulation by Ofcom. However, if they choose to extend their activities to the internet, they move into an area in which anybody can set up. It would be slightly unfair to them to make them subject to intrusive regulation when their competitors are subject to no outside scrutiny at all. 
 The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) is right to say that this subject becomes difficult when television broadcasts and material made available on the internet begin to merge into one. Difficult questions arise when, for example, coverage of ''Big Brother'' on Channel 4 is continued on E4 and on the Channel 4 website. However, I have reservations about subjecting the commercial sector to the type of regulation the hon. Gentleman proposes. 
 I have no such reservations regarding the BBC. It uses public money and should be subject to much higher standards. I question whether it is appropriate for the BBC to move into certain areas. Commercial broadcasters do not have to produce public service programming all the time—for the large part, they operate on a commercial basis that seeks to attract as many viewers as possible. In my view, with which the Committee is becoming increasingly familiar, the BBC should concentrate on the production of educational, informative, high-quality programming in whatever format it extends into. 
 If one examines the BBC website, one sees that, occasionally, material is included that stretches the definition of public service broadcasting. A programme was produced recently about the model 
 Katie Price, who is known as Jordan. The programme was about her background and how she was coping with motherhood. That could, perhaps, be defined as educational or informative—if one stretched a point, it could fall under the public service remit. However, the accompanying internet pages, which were supposedly to promote the documentary, ''Jordan: The Model Mum'', included a large number of pages consisting of pictures of Jordan wearing not very much.

Hon. Members: How do you know?

John Whittingdale: My investigations on behalf of the Committee go a long way.

Michael Fabricant: Would it help my hon. Friend to know that the Parliamentary Communications Directorate, while failing to sort out the telephones at Portcullis House yesterday, is introducing anti-spam software that filters out flesh tones, among other things? The block that will be applied might in future prevent him from viewing such pictures on the internet.

John Whittingdale: I am intrigued to hear that the Parliamentary Communications Directorate is going to start censoring BBC output. I do not wish to prolong the salacious advertisement of the website, but several of the pictures were topless shots, and one headline—I know this because I have talked to the Daily Mail about it referred to taking a trip ''down mammary lane''. That stretches the definition of public service broadcasting. There is a legitimate view that the BBC, as a public service broadcaster funded by the licence payer, should be subject to higher standards than other broadcasters, which may include standards of internet content.
 The other concern that I have voiced before about the BBC's internet activities is that in many cases they represent competition with existing commercial companies. The most recent example is the online digital curriculum and the competition that it offers to commercial producers of educational software. I therefore welcome the amendment in so far as it would begin to bring the BBC under some external scrutiny, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Devon has not extended that to the logical conclusion of including all the BBC's activities. I am less comfortable with the suggestion that it should extend to all the commercial broadcasters because that would create an unlevel playing field; commercial broadcasters would then be right to complain that they were being regulated when other internet site producers with whom they are in competition were not.

Roger Gale: Order. Before we proceed, I think that it would be helpful if I made it plain to the Committee that I am prepared to allow a fairly wide-ranging debate, as is my custom when there is a series of grouped amendments to a clause, provided that we do not have a clause stand part debate at the end.
 I would also like to make it clear that as this is the only clause in this part of the Bill that deals specifically with the BBC in this context, if hon. Members have matters relating to the BBC that they wish to get off 
 their chests, now is the time to do so. I say that because there will be a further opportunity when we come to schedule 12, probably on Thursday, to debate broader and other matters relating to the BBC. While I expect the Committee to remain in order, I am prepared to tolerate a reasonably wide-ranging debate.

John Whittingdale: You tempt me to make a much longer speech, Mr. Gale. Three groups of amendments relate to clause 256, each one of which deals with a specific aspect of the public service remit. We are considering the internet, impartiality and regional production. There are more general questions about the public service remit and to bring those into any of the amendments would be to extend the debate a long way beyond the subject.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—that is why I was careful to say ''in this context''. I would not have the power to preclude proper debate that was in order on other amendments that refer to the BBC—that is a given. In the broader context to which he refers, those matters will more helpfully be debated when we come to schedule 12.

Michael Fabricant: I fully support the amendments. The key phrase is ''related internet . . . services'', specifically dealing with those internet services that are provided by broadcasters. I shall to speak briefly about the BBC. About three years ago, the former chairman of the governors of the BBC and the director general appeared before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I asked the chairman whether the BBC's internet site—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said, is the most popular British site—should be funded, not from the licence fee, but by advertising, as are other internet sites and indeed the Radio Times. It was interesting that the answer of the then chairman of the BBC, Gavyn Davies' predecessor, was no, because the internet is an extension of BBC broadcasting. If the BBC regards the internet as an extension of the broadcast media, any controls applying to broadcasting should be extended to the internet.
 My hon. Friend suggested that programming, too, should be under the control of Ofcom, but we have already had that debate, which, sadly, we lost. However, if internet services are related to programming, they should be under the same controls. I do not have the same concerns as my hon. Friend about websites run by independent television companies, Channel 4 and Channel Five. I do not believe that the proposed measure would put those companies at a commercial disadvantage because Ofcom will not regulate the services with a heavy touch. As the Minister has said on a number of occasions, a light touch will be the order of the day.

Simon Thomas: Another reason why the amendment will not impact on the commercial activities of those broadcasters is that they cross-promote their internet activities through their television programmes. At the beginning and end of the television programmes, viewers are told to log on for additional material. Other internet providers do not have that advantage and they might complain that commercial companies are able to cross-promote and
 therefore encourage people of all ages to log on to particular sites. That surely means that those related activities should come under the aegis of Ofcom, as the amendment suggests.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Any disadvantages outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford will be more than balanced by those that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
 I support amendments Nos. 465 and 466. They make sense and one flows naturally through the other. Information technology on the internet should be controlled in exactly the same way as other forms of broadcast media.

Nick Palmer: The amendments touch on a basic difficulty for law makers. We are attempting to control something that is out of legislators' control. I am surprised to hear my colleague on the all-party internet group urging greater regulation of part of the internet because, as I am sure he is aware, it is not practical to regulate the rest of it. We could have a small group of internet providers who happen to be broadcasters and are therefore regulated, but who, if they ceased to be broadcasters, would instantly be free of regulation. What sense would that make?

Michael Fabricant: I acknowledge that there cannot be control over the internet as a whole, because most internet sites originate outside the United Kingdom and Ofcom can have no authority over them. However, the key word in the amendments is ''related''. The internet sites referred to are generated in the UK, so they can be regulated. As I have said, if the chairman of the BBC regards its internet site as an extension of the broadcast media, it seems illogical that any rules that apply to radio frequency, or RF, broadcasting should not apply to the internet.

Nick Palmer: I understand that point. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it would be a lawyer's paradise to try to distinguish between different types of media content—services that relate directly to programming, services that are a bit connected to programming, and services that are about something else. I appreciate the motives behind the amendments, but I do not think that they will work in practice.

Kim Howells: Amendment No. 465 would add internet information services related to public service television to one of the purposes of public service television broadcasting. That would create a scenario in which related internet information services—such as the Channel 4 and ITN websites—were encompassed within all the public service television purposes now set out in clause 256. For example, such internet services would have to be balanced in order to meet the needs and interests of available audiences, and Ofcom would be expected to report in its maximum five-yearly review of public service broadcasting on whether the relevant internet services taken together had fulfilled the specified purposes.
 As the hon. Member for North Devon explained, amendment No. 466 would add the provision of internet information services that are related to public service television to the matters to be taken into account to fulfil the purposes of the public service broadcasting remit, namely that such services should comprise a public service for the provision of information, education and entertainment. Our view is that, taken as a whole, public service television services should provide information, education and entertainment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. The amendment would add internet services, such as the Channel 4 and ITN websites, to the existing provision. That would require Ofcom to report in its maximum five-yearly reviews on whether such websites had contributed to fulfilling that aspect of the overall public service broadcasting remit. 
 We have already heard some of the reasons why it would be difficult—I agree with the initial point made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford—to differentiate between the regulation of sites belonging to a small number of broadcasters and those belonging to everyone else. That would create a good niche opportunity for all kinds of people who might decide to move in and fill the vacuum should the broadcasters feel constrained in terms of what they could do in the light of that additional regulation and inspection. 
 The regulatory framework that we are discussing is concerned with the requirements of public service television broadcasting. It would not be sensible or practicable to extend that framework to cover services that are provided via the internet. That applies even, as we have already heard, to sites that broadcasters choose to provide as an adjunct. Such sites are a useful, but quite separate, adjunct to broadcasters' television services. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for North Devon will agree to withdraw the amendments, although I understand the spirit in which they were tabled.

Nick Harvey: The Minister deploys a somewhat technical argument in saying that Ofcom would be obliged to consider such websites in combination and to determine whether they were fulfilling a public service remit. I take the Minister's point, but he has not addressed the main issue. Websites are developed with resources accumulated by parent companies through a privileged market position, which differs in respect of each broadcaster. That raises some interesting questions about what they choose to do with such resources. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford touched on that in his remarks. Some issues need further consideration, but I accept that the precise proposal in the amendment might not be the best way in which to proceed, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Gale: Before we proceed, I have reflected on what the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said. When I let Committee members off the leash, they usually chase hares in every possible direction, but that does not seem to have happened in
 this instance. I take the point that the amendments are finely drawn and, given the nature of the debate so far, I propose to have a stand part debate, provided that it is in order.

Nick Harvey: I beg to move amendment No. 506, in
clause 256, page 224, line 22, at end insert 'that complies with the impartiality requirements of section 308 relating to television broadcasting services and teletext services'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
 Amendment No. 507, in 
clause 258, page 226, line 29, leave out 'and'.
 Amendment No. 508, in 
clause 258, page 226, line 31, and end insert '; and 
 (c) the provider will comply with the standards set by OFCOM's code under section 307 relating to the impartiality requirements of section 308.'.
 Amendment No. 513, in 
clause 258, page 226, line 35, at end insert— 
 '(3A) Every report prepared under subsection (3) shall include— 
 (a) an account of the handling and resolution of all complaints received by the provider of the channel that are not handled or resolved by procedures established by OFCOM in accordance with section 313(2); and 
 (b) a particular account of the handling and resolution of complaints specified in paragraph (a) about compliance with the standards set by OFCOM's code under section 307 relating to the impartiality requirements of section 308.'.

Nick Harvey: The amendments are intended to highlight the impartiality, especially political impartiality, that has been part and parcel of British broadcasting since it began. Many people may take it for granted and assume that broadcasting will always be impartial. Let me make it clear from the outset that I wish adamantly that that should always be the case; however, we face a scenario in which broadcasting in the United Kingdom will change very fast.
 The Government's proposals to allow non-European ownership might have a significant impact on the nature and culture of British broadcasting. New owners of British broadcasting companies might well be unfamiliar with the rather British view of political impartiality. One can already find signs of that. Columns in various media journals and some of the broadsheets argue that political impartiality on our television stations is one of the causes of voter apathy and a lack of interest in democratic politics. People are beginning to say that opinion-led news and current affairs programmes are a means by which we could boost interest in not only television programmes but the democratic process and politics. 
 If we were to allow that to happen, it would fundamentally change the nature of British television. Certainly, we will be in a very different situation if such changes are taken in conjunction with the legal challenges that might—although let us hope that they will not—result in our having to allow political advertising on British television. That is why I am keen that we take advantage of the Bill to reinforce and strengthen as much as we can the requirements for political impartiality in British television.

Brian White: The old system whereby political parties deal with every issue is breaking down, and single-issue groups are appearing. How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that single-issue campaigning be dealt with?

Nick Harvey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he mentions another important change that is taking place. The nature of democratic politics is changing. Certainly, voter loyalty to parties is far more fluid than it used to be.

Roger Gale: Order. There is an undercurrent of muttering in the Committee this morning, and it is making it difficult for me to hear the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor.

Nick Harvey: British politics is much more fluid than it used to be. Young people in particular are far more inclined to get involved in single-issue politics, whereas in previous generations, people were more inclined to get involved in party politics.

Kim Howells: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the Committee on that issue? I am genuinely perplexed, because I hear that claim made time and again, but can find no proof of its truth. Where is the proof that young people are becoming involved in single-issue politics?

Nick Harvey: Is the Minister querying the suggestion that young people are not getting involved in party politics, or the suggestion that they are getting involved in single-issue politics?
Dr. Howells indicated assent.

Nick Harvey: I see that the Minister had the latter point in mind. The sort of campaign groups that we see campaigning, vocally and visibly, seem frequently to be led by young people. [Interruption.] I agree that that has probably always been the case. However, young people are involved in such groups, but not in political parties, at least not in the numbers in which they used to participate. All the political parties are smaller than they were a few years ago. I do not intend to score a political point, but research on the average age of the Conservatives makes it perfectly clear that they are struggling to recruit young members.

Kim Howells: We all are.

Nick Harvey: Indeed.
 The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) asked how single-issue campaigning is to be dealt with in the context of political impartiality in television. The BBC, for example, has quite detailed producer guidelines on how to deliver political impartiality, and it attempts to perform according to them. That quite detailed approach needs to be used by all broadcasters. In my view, as time goes on, all broadcasters will need to be monitored. 
 As I say, there is debate in the broadcasting industry on how to revive audience numbers for political programming, and I think that the overall requirement for balance is absolutely essential for doing that. Quite often, complaints are made about lack of political impartiality. They are sometimes made by the main political parties, all three of whom, from time to time, have grievances against particular 
 programmes, believing that they are not as impartial as they could be. Complaints are also frequently made by others outside the party framework—perhaps in the fashion that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East was getting at in his intervention. 
 One problem is that there are often more than two sides to an issue. To put up two opposing points of view, regardless of whether they are political parties' viewpoints, does not necessarily deliver balance and impartiality of coverage. One might expect a Liberal Democrat to refer to that problem, but I am not raising it entirely in party terms. There must be a more wide-ranging and dispassionate commitment to information and to reporting matters of industrial or political controversy. 
 The BBC guidelines state that the right weight should be given to matters during the period in which a controversy is active. Producers of television programmes frequently claim that they will deliver balance during the course of a long series: that might prove to be the case if anybody were to perform some sort of laboratory analysis, but the usual viewing patterns mean that a series is unlikely to be balanced for any particular viewer at any particular point in time. 
 All the political parties complain from time to time about coverage—that is true of both Government and Opposition parties. The current arrangements are only just adequate, and I have grave reservations about whether they will continue to be so as television changes in very significant ways in the future. The proposals in the amendments would go some way to equip us to deal with the problems that we will face, but I do not suggest that they offer a perfect solution. I am simply trying to raise the issues for debate. 
 If the broadcasters were obliged to give details in their statement of programme policy about how they will deliver impartiality and were then obliged to say how well they think they have done in their own reporting, and if the regulators were then to look at that and, as an appendix to their report, they had to show a digest of the complaints that they had received over the reporting period and how they had dealt with them, that would begin to flush out some of these difficult issues—which might become increasingly difficult. 
 I am interested in what the Minister and other Committee members have to say about this issue, which has the potential to become extremely important in future.

John Whittingdale: I agree with the hon. Member for North Devon that the issue is important. We could have a very interesting debate about it. I will restrain myself from launching into a speech about the impartiality of the BBC, because that would take up all morning; I will save myself for clause 308, where some of those issues can be explored at greater length.
 I am tempted to respond to some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I accept that the public service broadcasters must remain impartial. They enjoy special privileges and they continue to wield huge influence because of their dominance. Although it is decreasing, the market share that they enjoy imposes 
 the need for much stronger controls, particularly on impartiality and balance. 
 I have no particular objection to the amendment—although the Minister might well tell us that it is unnecessary because the matters that it addresses are dealt with by clause 308. On whether we should allow expressions of opinion on television, I have a sneaking sympathy with some of the articles to which the hon. Member for North Devon referred, in which it is written that the absence of any form of opinion on our television is leading to blandness.

Nick Harvey: Surely the challenge is to deliver a balance of opinions, not to ban opinion altogether. The hon. Gentleman suggests that impartiality means that no one can express an opinion, but that is not what is suggested.

John Whittingdale: I am sorry—let me express myself better. Newspapers feature news coverage and express many different points of view, but newspapers hold opinions that are expressed through leader columns. There is currently no equivalent of leader columns in any television production. When, in a multi-channel age with more digital take-up, we have a plethora of channels, it might be interesting to have a socialist channel, a Conservative party channel and even—dare I say—a Liberal Democrat channel. I would not object to that in principle, as long as the channels were clearly labelled and people knew exactly what they were watching. I would not want to see opinion disguised as impartial comment.
 We are not there yet, but I have seen articles that point to the position in America. Several American news bulletins make no secret of the fact that they are produced with a specific political point of view, which increases the diversity available. That is an interesting and attractive idea. I do not suggest that we are at that point, but I am not persuaded that we can never go down that road.

Chris Bryant: There is a tradition in the United Kingdom that people who buy newspapers understand that they are getting heavily editorialised content all the way from the simple reporting through to the op-ed pages. There is an expectation that what is heard on the television and radio is undiluted and raw, and therefore more trustable. Every opinion poll has found that most people in this country would prefer that to the route taken by Italy, where each of the RAI channels has historically been considered to belong to one of the political parties. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that we should have a Labour party channel and a Conservative party channel?

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about everything—viewers want to be able to trust a channel to deliver impartial and balanced news coverage and documentaries, and that should remain a requirement on public service broadcasters. People should know that they can always turn to those broadcasters for such programmes, but that does not necessarily dismiss the idea of allowing clearly branded channels that make no secret of the fact that they express a specific point of view. As long as viewers knew that they would get an undiluted stream of
 Government propaganda if they turned on a Labour party channel, I would not necessarily ban it, although I cannot imagine that it would get many viewers—few Labour Members would be likely to watch it. Such a channel would increase the range and diversity of available programmes, and that is good. The argument is theoretical at the moment, but I do not want to rule such things out at this stage.

Eric Joyce: I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. Ian Hargreaves, a professor at Cardiff university who will be a member of the Ofcom board, made precisely that point. He said that channels abroad such as al-Jazeera broadcast to people in the UK who own a suitable satellite dish. Such channels are clearly biased. Unless we allow similar latitude in the UK, we might turn off certain parts of the population. Ian Hargreaves noted a lack of confidence among ethnic minorities about the current lack of bias. That might contribute to future viewing patterns, so it is a legitimate point.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I shall not talk about al-Jazeera because that would raise many other questions, especially about the BBC's new arrangement with al-Jazeera, which gives rise to several concerns.
 I do not want to prolong the debate but I do not want the amendment to pass by without at least some exploration of whether existing, rigid constraints should necessarily continue.

Kim Howells: I certainly agree with the hon. Member for North Devon about holding the line on impartiality. I have listened with interest to the discussion. On the comments made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, when I was in the United States last summer, the turnout for political elections was perceived to have reached crisis levels. The various channels available there have not affected turnout because most people to do not watch them. There does not appear to be a magic formula for engaging people in politics, and I would be very reluctant to go down the route that he suggests.
 Call me old fashioned, but I also challenge the basic assumptions made by the hon. Member for North Devon. For the past 30 years, I have listened to the cliché about young people flocking to single issues and not being interested in politics. I was extraordinarily active in the anti-Vietnam war movement in 1967–68. I do not perceive a huge move by young people away from formal into informal or street politics. I read the papers and listen to the radio as much as anyone else in the Committee. I understand that Greenpeace has financial difficulties, as has Friends of the Earth, despite the fact that they are businesses that have good career structures these days. I do not see any golden image of a form of politics in which young people are interested. What worries me is the drift away from politics full stop, which is something that we must carefully examine, although the issue is often over-egged. 
 In many ways, I agree that broadcasters transmitting into the country via satellite, internet or whatever, will change the ecology and culture of broadcasting for ever. However, that phenomenon is not new. For a long time, Radio Moscow pumped stuff into the west in an attempt to undermine the values of social democracy and so on, and we did the same thing to the Russians. I am not sure what effect it had. We probably had a bit more effect than they did because our programmes were more interesting, but I do not speak Russian and so could not swear to that. 
 We must be careful. Impartiality is a specified objective of Ofcom's standards code, which is provided for by clause 307 and applies to all licensed broadcasters. The clause with which we are dealing relates to the qualitative aspects of public service broadcasting as opposed to the basic standards that should probably be applied to all broadcasters. Amendment No. 506 seeks to incorporate the Ofcom code on impartiality into matters to be taken into account for the overall purposes of public service broadcasting. By adding that to the requirement for public service broadcasters to provide fair and well-informed news and current affairs programming, the amendment confuses the distinction between standards and quality. 
 Standards in broadcasting, whether provided by licensed public service broadcasters such as the BBC or non-public service broadcasters, will be governed by the Ofcom standards code. That will include standards for impartiality, advertising and protection of the public from offensive and harmful material, which the exception that impartiality will remain the responsibility of the governors in the BBC's case and that S4C will be self-regulating. In contrast, the overall public service broadcast remit set out in the Bill relates to the qualitative aspects of public service broadcasting and aims to ensure high-quality programming across a wide range of subjects. We do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to refer to Ofcom's standards code in the overall PSB remit, because the standards code will apply directly to all broadcasters. 
 Amendments Nos. 507 and 508 require licensed public service broadcasters to commit to complying with the impartiality aspects of the standards code in their annual statements of programme policy. The statements of programme policy are part of the self-regulatory regime for the qualitative aspects of PSB—that is, tier 3. The inclusion of impartiality standards—part of tier 1—is therefore inappropriate. We believe that broadcasting standards and quality of programming should be distinguished carefully. For all those reasons, we believe it unnecessary to refer to the impartiality code in statements of public programme policy. 
 Similarly, amendment No. 513 seeks to require licensed public service broadcasters to report in their statements of programme policy on the handling and resolution of all complaints that are not handled under the procedure established for the Ofcom standards code. In addition, broadcasters would have to give an account of the handling and resolution of complaints regarding impartiality that are received under the 
 Ofcom code. We believe that that is inconsistent with the self-regulatory approach to the qualitative aspects of PSB. Statements of programme policy are intended to encourage self-regulation and improve the quality of programming by allowing broadcasters to innovate. That is a very important consideration that we have not discussed this morning. 
 Ofcom will be obliged to establish procedures for the handling and resolution of complaints about the observance of the standards code, including its impartiality standards. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Nick Harvey: I am grateful to the Minister for putting the Government's view on record. It is a diversion, but I am persuaded by what he said about the myth that young people nowadays are more inclined to go in for single-issue politics than party politics. I was led astray from my original path by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East.
 Coming back to the Minister's points, there are different ways to skin a cat and the ones mentioned so far may not be the best. However, I welcome the Minister's belief that we should adhere to the principle of impartiality. I was scared rigid by the line taken by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. The only thing that I can cling to is his suggestion that we are ''not there yet'', as he put it. 
 Leaving to one side the BBC—which I hope will always enjoy a strong position, as is likely unless the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford becomes the Secretary of State any time soon—Channels 3, 4 and Five enjoy a market dominance. However, in the digital era, Channels 3, 4 and Five, although they will still have various market advantages, will cease to be as relevant and will become just three channels among very many. His suggestion that those channels ought to be compelled to observe political impartiality, but that others ought not to have that burden put on them, is one that I find very unattractive indeed. As hon. Members have said, broadcasting in America should serve as a dire warning of what would happen were we to go down that path. I was driving a car the first time I listened to a radio broadcast in America, and I was so astounded by what I heard that I nearly lost control of the vehicle. I only recovered control because I assumed that the programme was satire. It was some minutes before I realised that it was actually a normal programme. We could be going down a very slippery slope. 
 I rather support the statement that the ban on religious groups having television or radio licences is difficult to justify. However, if I thought for one moment that we were going to allow those groups to use religious broadcasts to stray into politics—as the so-called American moral majority does—I would be filled with horror. I am all for groups having licences to play Christian music, but I would be scared stiff if they started to stray into politics and say that God said we should vote for one party or another. I do not want there to be a broadcasting ecology in the coming years that restricts political impartiality to the public service stations but allows something of an opinion-led free for all in the others. However, I accept the Minister's 
 point that the amendment might not be the best technical way to bring about the desired ends.

John Whittingdale: I am surprised to find that I am more liberal than the Liberals on this issue. I, too, find the vision that the hon. Gentleman presents to the Committee unattractive. However, if we were to reach a position in which a station was producing the type of programming that he describes—regardless of whether it was religious—in a multi-channel world, people could switch channels. They do not have to listen to that channel. If someone were such a committed supporter of a certain party—or of whatever—that they wanted to listen to such a channel, I am not yet convinced that they should not be able to do so.

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is describing the market that we enjoy in newspapers, journals, magazines and so forth. If, in the days of large cross-media holdings, those large groups are to be able to use their television assets to start spreading their messages on to television as well, that will fundamentally change British television, British society and British democracy in ways that would be unhealthy, and I would resist that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 392, in
clause 256, page 224, line 41, leave out from 'include' to 'proportion' in line 42 and insert 
 'a wide range and a substantial'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 346, in
clause 256, page 224, leave out lines 42 and 43 and insert 
 'a wide range and substantial proportion of programmes made in the regions and nations of the United Kingdom outside the M25 area'.

John Robertson: The public service remit includes a requirement on the range and proportion of programmes that are made outside the M25 area, which is essential for content and regional character. That is to be preserved under Ofcom.
 Clause 256 stipulates that, 12 months after the commencement of the Bill and no less than every five years thereafter, Ofcom will prepare a report on the current state of public television broadcasting in order to assess the extent to which broadcasters are satisfying the requirements of the public service broadcasting remit that is laid down in the clause. 
 Although I am pleased that the Bill makes provision for regular reporting, I am unhappy with the wording of the clause, which stipulates the criteria on which the assessment will be made. Subsection (6)(i) deals with the 
''range and proportion of programmes made outside the M25 area.''
 I propose that 
''what appears to OFCOM to be an appropriate range''
 should be replaced by 
''a wide range and substantial''
 proportion of programmes. 
 The clause sets no specific minimum level for original production, regional production and regional programming quotas. It simply refers to a level and a range that is ''appropriate'', ''suitable'' or ''sufficient'' in the eyes of Ofcom. That is inadequate. Experience has shown that regulators have felt obliged to alter their views on what is appropriate to fit in with the economic status of the ITV licence holders, and they may be pressurised by licence holders to do so. If that is put against a background of growing concentration of ITV ownership and the continuing depression in advertising revenue, the potential to lower the regional and original production requirements is likely to be acute. Scottish TV's network output fell from 225 hours in 1994 to 136 hours in 2000, which means that the amount of Scottish programming for ITV is just 7 per cent. Five years is a long time and a lot can happen during that period: Ofcom's reporting on the requirements of the public service remit is important, so we must ensure that we get it right now. 
 Amendment No. 346, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), does not differ very much from the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) and I, but I have a concern about it. His amendment adds nothing of substance to our amendment; it simply muddies the waters by adding a nationalist dimension that does nothing to enhance the Bill—just as nationalism does nothing to enhance politics. 
 The hon. Gentleman should be aware that in Scotland we have three Channel 3 stations. Border Television covers part of England as well as Scotland. There is Scottish TV and Grampian TV, too, so to mention nations is not even accurate, and insisting that the word ''nations'' be included is doing a disservice to the nature of the amendment.

Simon Thomas: I was going to support the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but I am not sure whether I will now. He must look for nationalists under his bed every night before he goes to sleep, because if he finds nationalism in amendment No. 346, he can find it in any part of his life.
 The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) responded to my amendment in a strange way. I shall try to persuade him, or at least the hon. Member for Gloucester, who may be slightly more amenable, as it is easier to receive Welsh television programmes in Gloucester. I must tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland that we in Wales also have more than one ITV provider. A significant number of Welsh people watch Granada in north Wales; Granada is as much a provider for north Wales as HTV, these days. The thinking behind my amendment is similar to that that behind amendment No. 292. 
 Perhaps under clause 257 we will have the opportunity to debate in more detail what ''substantial'' means in relation to both protecting regional production and Ofcom. Clause 256 is, in a way, a consequential clause that comes first. We may have a better understanding of what substantial 
 regional production means after we have considered clause 257. Ofcom will have to be empowered to produce reports on the public service remit of the broadcaster in a way that reflects its new responsibility for ensuring substantial regional or national input. 
 When I first read the clause, it struck me as being fairly unique. The same provisions turn up in several other places in the Bill, too. I do not know whether we have ever before discussed legislation that defines ''outside the M25'' as a geographical area of the United Kingdom. I do not know whether the M25 is going to turn up in future legislation as some sort of geographical area, whether we will take into account the expansion of the lanes of the M25, or whether all of south-east England will one day be encompassed within the M25 area. Certainly, it is strange to have the area defined in that way. 
 I must tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and the Committee that my reasoning for specifically putting in ''regions and nations''—''regions'' obviously referring to the different regional ITV areas within England, and ''nations'' referring to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—is that it would be easy for regional production for the whole of the United Kingdom to be located in, say, Reading. That would be outside the M25 area. Or, it could easily be located in the new Llanilid studios proposed for south Wales.

Andrew Lansley: I do not necessarily endorse the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he accept that one does not need to speculate about those engaged in television production just outside the M25? If my recollection is right, Pinewood, Leavesden and Hatfield are all just outside the M25.

Simon Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. My knowledge of the geography of the M25 is not as accurate as his. Another example is that of the new studios proposed for Llanilid in south Wales. I believe that that is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). That could become a regional production area for the United Kingdom. The fact that the studios will be in Wales and will produce jobs in Wales will not give me great pleasure if they then suck regional production and jobs away from other parts of the United Kingdom. I am trying to put ''regions and nations'' into the Bill is to prevent precisely that. There is no nationalist ghost stalking the corridors of Scottish castles in my amendment; the amendment is a straightforward strengthening of a provision of the Bill. It would ensure that ''outside the M25'' does not just mean Pinewood, to mention the example given by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), or a new facility in Swindon or wherever. The amendment would mean spreading out regional production and ensuring that it remains within the existing ITV areas. We already know that will be one ITV—that which already exists.

Kim Howells: I often get into trouble for throwaway remarks. Swindon is a fair distance from London; it takes an hour on the worst rail service in Britain, First Great Western, and it has different priorities from places within the M25. That part of Wiltshire and the
 south midlands is a region in its own sense. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that. It is not just about England; we must not get ethnic about this.

Simon Thomas: I do not think that the Minister was listening to what I said.

Kim Howells: I was listening.

Simon Thomas: Clearly, he was not. It would not be right for all the regional production in England to be based in Swindon. Every part of the UK must have its ITV regional productions and must be reflected in the BBC. The clause also reflects the BBC's public service remit and, through that, the BBC must reflect its regions.
 The argument is not whether one area should produce all the television programmes in the UK, but whether all areas should share in the regional productions of ITV and Channel 3, and whether regions should be reflected in Channel 4, which has its own public service remit, and in the BBC. To a lesser extent, we must bear it in mind that Channel Five viewer numbers are increasing and that it may have a stronger public service remit in future. 
 We should not just define an area outside the M25. If we do that, that could allow one ITV, or Channel 3, company to pick and choose where to locate most of its regional production. We have already heard about some companies making so-called regional programmes that they want to show in more than one region. I understand that that is already happening and that three or four ITV regions are sharing what are, basically, the same programmes. That is also a diminution of the regional programming that was set out by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland. 
 I hope that if the Minister will not accept the wording of the amendments, that he will accept their spirit. I hope that he will take this opportunity to explain how he would ensure, through Ofcom, that strong regional production would not become over-centralised or diminished. All areas of the UK—not just Swindon, South Wales, Pinewood, or Scotland—could share the economic benefits brought to them by television, film and radio production.

Parmjit Dhanda: I shall restrict my remarks as I intend to speak in more depth on clause 257, although in many respects the debates overlap.
 I pay tribute to the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union, which has provided some detailed briefs for the clauses. BECTU represents many people in the industry and, as a trade union for skilled people, it has real concerns about redundancies, because many of its members are technical staff who work outside the M25. I take the point that the hon. Member for Ceredigion made about Hatfield and Pinewood being close to, but outside, the M25. Many of the relevant jobs are located in Scotland and Wales and although I will not intervene in the battle between those two countries that is taking place around me about what makes a region and what makes a nation, it is important that we remember that we are talking about skilled jobs. 
 We should do what we can to protect them. I hope that the clauses and amendments will do that.

John Greenway: This is an important issue. I hinted in an intervention last week that we would want to return to regional issues. This group of amendments and the next address some important issues that the Committee must consider.
 The amendments that were moved by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Anniesland and for Ceredigion, relate to clauses on public service purposes and Channel 3 regional programming quotas. The amendments would require Ofcom to ensure that a substantial proportion of regional programming and production is made by Channel 3. I have listened to the hon. Member for Ceredigion's comments about whether that would give guarantees on the regional structure. I do not think that that is necessary, for reasons that I will come to in a moment. The amendments are intended to ensure that a substantial amount of regional programming and production is made by Channel 3. That would replace the existing discretion that the Bill gives Ofcom to decide what proportion would be appropriate in the circumstances. At the outset, we must consider two important points. We welcome subsection (7), which requires Ofcom to consider the costs to persons providing the services and 
''the sources of income available to each of them for meeting those costs.''
 In other words, it must have regard to what has happened in the real world. Last week, I said that, during the past few years, the financial base of ITV has gradually eroded to an alarming extent. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, the clause applies to the BBC, too, and because of the licence fee increase, the BBC's income has grown. Some of its extra money has clearly been directed at regional programming. It is important to have regard to the fact that, in essence, the changes that have been made to ITV's regional output, especially to its news and current affairs programming, to bring it more into a national network only replicate what happens at the BBC. 
 I have received representations from BECTU. People working at ITV are concerned that we might legislate to provide opportunity for, say, a singly owned ITV company to erode further the regional commitment. I do not believe that those worries are justified. The amendments would unstitch the 2002 ITV agreement with the ITC to standardise the regional outputs of the ITV companies in the regions and overturn that agreement through a statutory requirement under the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend believe that the consolidations within ITV would be affected by the amendments? He will recall, for example, that Carlton Television acquired Central Television. Central Television was split up into various regions, but production is now centred in Nottingham. The programme ''Crossroads'', for example, is made at the major television production centre in Birmingham. That is outside the M25. Surely such consolidations will still continue.

John Greenway: To a degree my hon. Friend is right. The fact remains that the proposal would require Ofcom to impose quotas on ITV companies and unpick the agreement. It is easy to characterise the standardisation that has occurred as cutting regional production by hundreds of hours. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland has referred to that. However, the development is more complex and positive than it seems. Prior to the agreement, regional hours were a hotch-potch of different requirements, ranging from six to more than 20 hours a week in different regions. That made the planning and promotion of the ITV network as a whole—the programme schedule—an absolute nightmare because holes had to be left within the network for those companies with the highest regional requirement. Schedule coherence in competitive times—not the cost or the cutting of hours—made such a change inevitable.
 I shall remind the Committee again that I have worked with ITV for more than 10 years. I have heard such arguments before and I know the difficulties that there are behind the scenes. Balancing the objective of wanting to maintain the original regional dimension of ITV yet having a really competitive Channel 3 competing for audiences with the BBC and other channels, such as subscription channels on Sky, is a nightmare. When we try to impose intentions and objectives on commercial companies, we must have regard for their competitive pressures. We are in the business of not only prescribing what the companies do, but having regard to where the money will come from to pay for it. I remember making that argument in this very Committee Room when you were also present, Mr. Gale, during consideration of the 1990 legislation. The then Opposition wanted to prescribe the new national radio licences. The argument came back, ''Yes, that's fine, but how are you going to pay for the obligations that you place on the broadcasters?'' 
 The BBC is publicly subsidised by £2.5 billion. It is responsible for virtually 40 per cent. of all broadcasting output. I want a Channel 3 regime, with Channel 4 and Channel Five, that provides a strong and vigorous alternative to the BBC. If we impose obligations on those channels, we must have regard to the facts that all their income comes from advertising and that advertising budgets have diminished and are spread wider throughout many other channels. Even a football match that people pay to watch on the Sky Sports premium channel 433—I did that again on Sunday afternoon—carries advertising. We must have regard to what ITV can afford.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman's defence of ITV was as passionate as the way in which he gives the impression of wanting to sell off the BBC—[Interruption.] There is no need to get upset.
 If the ideas of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about what should happen to the BBC came about, where would the production of television in this country happen? Would everything be done down in England or centralised down in London while the rest of the country was left as it is?

John Greenway: The hon. Gentleman asks me about something that I did not say. I made no comment about the BBC except the fact—

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has not stopped mentioning the BBC for two weeks.

Roger Gale: Order.

John Greenway: I was simply saying that the BBC's financial base has been greatly strengthened and that it has consequently strengthened its regional and local commitments. I do not criticise that. The television regional commitments are networked in the same way as the regional programming arrangements that Channel 3 has had to use. That change was due to the agreement between the Independent Television Commission and ITV on the new regional agenda. I do not see the point of trying to unpick that by using the Bill to make changes that would impose obligations on Ofcom and ITV.

Parmjit Dhanda: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Greenway: I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Ceredigion first.
 The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and his colleagues should not think that because I am describing what happened to the BBC, that means that we want to do it down—on the contrary. I am taking the facts as read and telling the Committee that obligations placed on ITV must have regard to what happens with the BBC.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the ITC agreement. I accept that there were changes in the agreement that were not the result of a diminution in regional broadcasting but of an evening-out of programming—not including repeats, for example, in the hours specified in the agreement.
 Nevertheless, will the hon. Gentleman accept that, rather than unpicking the agreement, the amendment puts it on a firmer footing within the ecology of Ofcom itself? It becomes the agreement on which Ofcom bases its work on what is, I accept, a substantial and wide range of programming. I want to preserve that range. 
 The hon. Gentleman mentioned the financial problems of the third channel. He should also bear in mind that Channel 3 broadcasts under licence from the Government as the regional broadcaster for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is the basis on which it is granted its licence to broadcast. If that legal dimension is taken away from Channel 3, it should exist on the same basis as Channel 4 or Channel Five. It is our public service regional broadcaster.

John Greenway: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will find that I will address some of the issues that he raised in the rest of my remarks. I do not wish to detain the Committee unduly because we have a great deal to cover, so I will get on with them now.
 He is right to say that, when the pattern of regional output was re-arranged, the nation's regions and the small ITV regions were provided with new core weekly requirements measured by the hour. The hours lost were, in the main, during daytime television, during the night and repeats, as the hon. Gentleman said. No peak-time regional hours were lost—the changes 
 resulted in an extra 30 minutes of regional news at peak-time. 
 The ITC accepted ITV's case, but insisted upon and received additional investment in quality and regional production resources and schedule improvements for regional programmes. The changes resulted in the re-engagement of late-night regional news to ''News at Ten'' three days a week, which increased peak-time regional news by 30 minutes per week.

Parmjit Dhanda: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Greenway: No, I want to get on.
 The changes also resulted in a £2 million regional production fund open to ITV and independent producers and a new commitment to invest at least 50 per cent. of ITV's total programme budget outside the M25. There were new arrangements for local accountability, with regional advisory groups and non-executive directors on all regional ITV boards, and the ITV charter was published in which the nations and regions could underwrite those and other commitments to the ITV regional service. 
 The result is a more coherent ITV network and regional service, with safeguarded peak-time slots for regional news and other programmes and a raft of commitments by ITV to its regional future. The hon. Gentleman mentioned BECTU. We understand the worry that the standardisation package has led to redundancies. That is why the Conservatives believe that it would be wrong to unpick the agreement. 
 It is also wrong for the Bill to impose a substantial proportion of regional programming on Channel 3 via its remit of regional quota obligations. There is a disproportionate burden on Channel 3 to have to meet such an enhanced regulatory requirement when the existing regulator—the ITC—has already approved that standardisation as sensible and current levels of output as acceptable. 
 The amendment would remove an important discretion allowing Ofcom to assess the market conditions in which licensees operate and then set quotas accordingly, which is a consistent and laudable theme throughout the Bill. However, legislation is surely a bad place to set quotas. It should be for the regulator to determine what is appropriate or suitable in the circumstances. That is why subsection (7) of the clause is so important. 
 The Bill as drafted gives Ofcom the ability to set the requirements at a substantial level if it so wishes. The amendments would require Ofcom to have an absolute obligation to require consistently high proportions of production even though that may be contrary to prevailing economic, cultural or other circumstances. That is a coherent argument against the amendments. 
 We ought to get two other things out in the open, and I may return to some of these points when we reach the next group of amendments. The best way of making these points is to refer to an article by Mick Desmond, the managing director of ITV. The article was published in a document by the Westminster Media Forum. I declare an interest as one of the patrons—unpaid—of the forum, along with several other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the 
 Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford on the Front Bench, and you, Mr. Gale. The forum published a series of articles during the discussions on the draft Bill. Rather like the ITC document that I referred to earlier, it was a good addition to the debate. 
 I will read two extracts from Mr. Desmond's article. They will explain—better than my rambling on to the Committee would do—exactly why we can trust the ITC and why we should trust the ITV companies. Mr. Desmond states: 
''ITV is the only truly regional television network in Britain, with 15 separate licence areas. ITV is about Britain, not London, broadcasting to Britain. Not only does ITV's total investment in the regions far exceed that of any other broadcaster; it goes much further than our licences require.''
 It still does, and that is a key point. In spite of the fact that ITV now, in effect, comes under two groups of ownership, and is likely to come under one single owner, the 15 licences—enshrined in the 1990 legislation and strengthened, not weakened, in the Bill—have stood the test of time. Mr. Desmond is right to say that the investment that ITV makes is 
''incredibly valuable—creatively, culturally and economically.''
 In Yorkshire alone, Yorkshire Television contributes £55 million to the regional economy. It is the largest media employer in the region, providing 50 per cent. of the jobs in television and radio. It employs more than 1,000 people and supports more than 1,100 jobs in the supply chain. Granada Television contributes £160 million to the economy of the north-west and supports 4,000 jobs. My constituency, like those organisations, is in the north of England, and the contribution that companies such as Yorkshire Television, Granada Television and Tyne Tees Television in Newcastle make to the cultural life of the north is vast. For the life of me, I cannot see that ITV would want to renege on that in future, and that brings me to the crucial point of Mr. Desmond's argument. He says: 
''What concerns me is that despite this strong track record, there remains a belief that ITV would get out of the regions like a shot given half a chance.''
 In effect, the hon. Member for Ceredigion said that, but Mr. Desmond continues: 
''That view completely misunderstands what ITV is about. Regionality is not a paternalistic add-on to our core business—it is one of ITV's greatest assets. Yes, the regions need ITV, but equally ITV needs the regions.''
 I urge hon. Members to read pages 94 and 95 of the annexe to the ITC document, which set out ITV's charter for broadcasting in the nations and regions. We are still trying to persuade the Minister that we should go further with tier 3 in regard to the BBC and not simply rely on the agreement with the governors. However, it is fair to put this point to the Committee: if the BBC agreement is good enough to deliver the regional dimension for the BBC, why is the ITV charter for broadcasting in the nations and regions, together with the powers that the Bill will give to Ofcom, not good enough? The Minister believes that it is, and I agree with him. 
 The intention in Committee is the same. We want a strong ITV to be maintained regionally. All that 
 divides us is the extent to which we should prescribe in the Bill the quotas that the amendments would require Ofcom to impose. Let us have regard to the track record of ITV over the years. Even if its financial position improved marginally, it will never return to the halcyon days of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, when it had so much money that it hardly knew what to do with it. It will always be stretched financially. We should think carefully about what obligations we impose on broadcasters. Indeed, we should trust them more than some of my colleagues are inclined to do.

Roger Gale: Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Gloucester was seeking to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. It is not up to me to tell members of the Committee when they should or should not speak. However, it may be appropriate if I remind them that, unlike procedures on the Floor of the House, if an hon. Member, especially a person who has lent his or her name to an amendment, wants to speak more than once in the debate, it is up to the Chair to call that person.

John Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I meant no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman. I sensed that the Committee had much business to get through, and there was much that I wanted to say. I thought that the previous interventions were taking us away from the main arguments that I wanted to deploy.

Roger Gale: I am sure that no discourtesy was intended, but it is helpful at times to remind even those members of the Committee who have been in the House of Commons for a long time that members of a Committee have a facility that they do not have on the Floor of the House.

Nick Harvey: I support the amendments. Amendment No. 346, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion, usefully goes further than the simple definition of beyond the M25. The swift geography lesson that was despatched by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire should remind us that achieving a substantial proportion of programme-making outside the M25 would not protect what we know ITV to be.
 The real debate is between an appropriate or a substantial amount of programming outside. It is right to say that we need to go beyond an appropriate amount to a substantial amount. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) urged us to trust broadcasters and to realise that they would not do anything so wicked as to reduce the amount of programming in the regions. That is acceptable, given the current owners of the ITV licences and their track record. However, there will swiftly be a revolution in ownership. The cosy version of events that the hon. Gentleman portrayed is all very well but, if in a short time, Disney or AOL/Time Warner owns a single ITV company, it is rash to assume that it will have the same commitment as that of historical British broadcasters.

Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Ofcom still has powers to ensure that local news is generated locally and that all the fears about the
 merger of Carlton Television and Central Television never came about in respect of news programming? Regional television licences will still have to be maintained.

Nick Harvey: I accept that point, but if we leave it to a regulator to consider what is appropriate, such a power is basically susceptible to absolutely any line of argument that highly skilled and highly paid lawyers deployed by the new owner of Channel 3 wish to parade before it. It is bad enough when, for example, ITC allows ITV in certain regions to reduce the number of local variations in the news only to serve the convenience of it being on satellite. We foresee many arguments that a new owner of Channel 3 would parade.
 The hon. Member for Ryedale referred to market conditions. We will hear tales of woe and arguments such as, ''Times is tough, guv'nor. We really can't keep doing this any more.'' In the case of a global owner, it will be said, ''The world film market is depressed. We can't afford this any more.'' Highly skilled advocates will advance such arguments to Ofcom, and if it follows the form of its predecessors, it will prove susceptible to them.

John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the example that I quoted about STV and the reduction in the number of hours illustrates what he is attempting to explain?

Nick Harvey: It is a worrying example, and I think that we would see more and more of the same. That is why I believe that it would be right, through the Bill, to draw some lines in the sand. Channel 3—ITV as we know it—should have a substantial proportion of its programme-making based in the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. That does not mean, as the hon. Member for Ryedale suggested, that Ofcom has no latitude to make judgments from time to time—it would simply make them against a different initial requirement. If ITV—Channel 3—is not a broadcaster that makes a substantial proportion of its programmes in the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, it is not Channel 3 as we know it; it is fundamentally changed into something else.
 If there is any purpose in giving ITV the scarce spectrum or the advantages in the licence that it has, it must do something in return for that. We ask for different things from Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel Five, and what we ask from Channel 3 is a commitment to the regions. That is what it is for. The Bill would be much stronger and would give a much clearer message to any new owner of Channel 3 as to what it had bought if it made it clear that, come what may, the channel will always be required to make a substantial proportion of its programmes in the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. If it does not like the sound of that, it has a straight choice—it does not need to buy it. If it says at some point that it can no longer meet that commitment because ''times is hard'', we can take its licence away and someone else can come in and have a go at running it. 
 Simply allowing Ofcom to make a decision that is appropriate opens the door to every variety of 
 argument that cunning lawyers care to put. Adding the word ''substantial'' to the Bill would mean that everybody knows where they are and ITV—Channel 3—would fundamentally remain in character what it is today, and has been through its history.

Kim Howells: We have had a fascinating debate about an important part of the Bill. I have great sympathy with both the amendments and I understand their spirit. I shall explain to the Committee why I do not think that they are appropriate, but I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Gentlemen who tabled them because they cut through to something about which many of us feel passionately.
 The hon. Member for Ryedale emphasised the economic importance of ITV production in the regions. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland made an interesting point when he commented on the pernicious problem of frontiers. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who is sitting next to him, could have watched Wales's premier rugby team, Pontypridd, beating Connaught on Saturday night. I do not know why members of the Committee are laughing at that statement—it is the best team in Wales. It beat Connaught—one of those great regional Irish sides to which we are all supposed to aspire—in conditions that resembled the Somme, which is perhaps why we won. As my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester and for Glasgow, Anniesland informed us, it is very much, if you will excuse the phrase, Mr. Gale, a cross-frontier matter. Broadcasting often has strange boundaries. 
 I remember, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Ceredigion does, the number of people in south-east Wales who turned their aerials to face transmitters in the west of England. They seemed to know more about what was happening in Bristol than Cardiff—that cannot be a bad thing, sometimes. 
 Amendment No. 392 would ensure that licensed public service broadcasters would be expected to provide a wide range and substantial proportion of programmes made outside the M25, rather than an appropriate range and proportion of programmes made outside the M25 area, for which the Bill provides. The hon. Member for Ceredigion asked a question about geography rather well. That is already reflected fundamentally. The powerful South East England Development Agency is shaped geographically like a doughnut. The hole in the doughnut is the M25 and everything inside that. I would never refer to London as a hole because I love the city, but that hole is peculiar because about 1 million people go into it every day and then go back out. We are all familiar with that piece of geography.

Simon Thomas: We need to know how the jam in the doughnut will be spread.

Kim Howells: Amendment No. 346 would achieve the same end as the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland. It would provide that a wide range and substantial proportion of programming should be made in the nations of the UK outside the M25 area.

Michael Fabricant: For clarity, we are all assuming that ''M25 area'' means everything within the M25. Given the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire about film studios that are just outside the M25 road, is there a legal definition of the M25 area?

Kim Howells: I do not believe that there is, but that is a good point. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out that at least three, and probably four, of the world's great film production studios are close to, but outside, the M25. [Interruption.] My officials cannot seriously expect me to read the briefing note that has just been passed to me. [Laughter.] The short answer for the hon. Member for Lichfield is that I do not know whether the term is a legal definition. It is a useful form of shorthand. I guess that those of us who are older and saw talent often gravitated towards London because knew what we meant when we talked about London, although it sometimes extended as far as Pinewood and Shepperton.

Andrew Lansley: I think that the Minister was reaching for clause 348, which is titled ''Interpretation of Part 3''. It states that
'' 'the M25 area' means the area the outer boundary of which is represented by the London Orbital Motorway (M25)''.
 By definition, Pinewood, Leavesden and Hatfield are outside the M25.

Kim Howells: There we are. I nevertheless back the analysis of the hon. Member for Lichfield. We refer to the M4 corridor—north and south. That is a rather flimsy geographical description but we know what it means and it is quite useful. Anyway, enough of that.

Parmjit Dhanda: It is a good time to raise this point because we are talking about definitions. My hon. Friend mentioned programming. Subsection (6) refers to drama, comedy and music but neglects to mention feature film. Is that included in views about regional programming and production?

Kim Howells: I am sure that somebody will pop up and say that it does, but I do not think that it does. My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I have said before in Committee that there should be a symbiotic reciprocity between film-making and television. I am grateful to him for making the point and I shall consider it.
 The amendments would quantify more specifically one—and only one—of the matters to be taken into account for the purpose of fulfilling the general public service remit. So far as the relevant television services include programmes made in the United Kingdom, they should include programmes made outside the M25. Although the clause applies to all public service broadcasters, the Bill makes separate provision for specific quotas for production outside the M25 for Channels 3 and 4, and the agreement places a corresponding obligation on the BBC. The Government have also tabled an amendment to provide a production quota for programmes that are made outside the M25 for Channel Five. Therefore, we believe that it would be inappropriate for the overall public service purpose to specify that a 
''wide range and substantial proportion of programmes''
 should be made outside the M25 area, as more specific obligations for regional production will apply directly to the public service broadcasters. 
 The hon. Member for North Devon and other hon. Members advanced strong arguments.

Simon Thomas: The Minister mentioned that there will be other quotas and agreements regarding regional programmes, and he specifically mentioned the BBC agreement. The BBC does not come under Ofcom: therefore, when its remit is reviewed by Ofcom, that cannot be done in accordance with what is appropriate in the view of Ofcom because it is conducted under a separate agreement. What is the wording or the import of that agreement? If the answer is that there will be a move towards ''substantial''—as I suspect—that must be reflected with regard to Channel 3 too.

Kim Howells: I cannot state the exact wording of the agreement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman received the letter that I sent to him about revising that agreement. The BBC will come under Ofcom for tier 2 quota purposes; it is important to remember that. It is also worth emphasising that clause 256 is concerned with Ofcom's review and reporting function for the public service broadcasting sector as a whole. It does not provide the basis for Ofcom to impose regional production quotas directly on the broadcasters.
 Those quotas are the subject of clause 276, as the hon. Member for North Devon may have mentioned—and if he did not do so, he should have. Clause 276 deals with Channel 3; clause 278 deals with Channel 4; as the hon. Member for Ceredigion has just reminded us, the agreement covers the BBC; and a regional production quota for Channel Five is the subject of an amendment that has recently been tabled. With those reassurances, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

John Robertson: I thank the Minister for his comments. He has not entirely convinced me but, for the common good, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Brian White: Constituents rarely write to their Members of Parliament about a specific clause. However, Kay McManus wrote to me about the fact that the Broadcasting Act 1990 contained a specific obligation for commercial broadcasters to provide quality indigenous children's television programmes. Clause 256(6)(g) talks about Ofcom's report addressing whether services appear
''to be a suitable quantity of high quality and original programmes for children and young people.''
 The standard of television for children and young people is important for our future, and there is increasing concern about it. Will the Minister say whether Ofcom's reports on this will achieve the fulfilment of that public service remit, and whether 
 what the 1990 Act achieved will continue after the Bill becomes law?

Kim Howells: All licensed broadcasters will be subject to review by Ofcom in its maximum five-yearly review of public service broadcasting. One of the matters to be taken into account for the purposes that are covered in such reviews is that public service broadcasters produce a suitable quantity of high quality and original programmes for children and young people. I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point, because that is worth putting on the record.

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry to delay the Committee, Mr. Gale, but I am slightly perplexed by the Minister's answer. Surely, in so far as Ofcom would conduct a review of the purposes of public service broadcasting as a whole, it would not be confined to the activities of licensed broadcasters, but would include the activities of the BBC. The Minister rightly said that the BBC comes under Ofcom for tier 2, but under the clause Ofcom has the capacity to take a view about the extent to which public service broadcasting purposes are being met, if licensed public service channels and the BBC are considered together. We could, quite properly, arrive at a position in which the BBC board of governors had regulated the BBC in relation to some of the tier 3 responsibilities, whereas Ofcom, none the less, took a view in its report that was at odds with the BBC, to which the governors would have to respond.

Kim Howells: Yes. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East asked about commercial channels and I answered his point. However, I take the point that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made. The BBC's duty to report on such issues, and the expectation that Ofcom should pay due regard to those reports, would go some way towards meeting some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 256 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 257

Public service remits of licensed providers

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move amendment No. 303, in
clause 257, page 225, line 43, leave out subsection (2) and insert— 
 '(2) The public service remit for every Channel 3 service is the provision of a range of high quality and diverse programming which, in particular, makes a significant contribution to meeting the need for the licensed public service channels to reflect the tastes and interests of different communities and cultural traditions within nations and regions of the United Kingdom. 
 (2A) The public service remit for Channel 5 is the provision of a range of high quality and diverse programming.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 467, in
clause 257, page 225, line 43, leave out subsection (2) and insert— 
 (2) 'The public service remit for every Channel 3 service is the provision of a broad range of high quality and diverse programming, including factual and entertainment programmes, in a manner which— 
 (a) satisfies the tastes and interests of the part of the United Kingdom for which that service is licensed, and 
 (b) reflects the regional diversity of the United Kingdom.'.
 Amendment No. 347, in 
clause 257, page 225, line 46, at end insert 'including, in respect of Channel 3, a substantial proportion of programmes made in the regions and nations of the United Kingdom outside the M25 area'. 
Amendment No. 393, in 
clause 257, page 225, line 46, at end insert 'including, in respect of Channel 3, a substantial proportion of programmes made in the regions and nations of the United Kingdom outside the M25 area'. 
Amendment No. 528, in 
clause 257, page 225, line 46, at end insert— 
 '(2A) In fulfilling the public service remit under subsection (2), every Channel 3 service shall have regard to the need for Channel 3 services (taken together as a network) to provide distinct regional programming, including regional programme production.'.

Andrew Lansley: We have already debated some of the same purposes under clause 256, so I will not repeat the arguments, not least because I could not do it as well as most of the hon. Members who have contributed, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale. I do not want to depart from the points that my hon. Friend made. His remarks were apposite to the issue of trying, under clause 256, to create a structure of quotas—even if those were not technically quotas—in expectation of relatively large requirements that were no longer in balance with the commercial imperatives that fall on the commercial channels. The purpose of clause 257 is subtly different. It does not seek to consider public service broadcasting in the round; it seeks to begin the process of winnowing down to the specific obligations of the individual channels that are licensed for the purpose. I shall refer briefly to other amendments in the group, before returning to why I think that amendment No. 303 has merit.
 Amendments Nos. 347 and 393 relate directly to some of the same issues as amendment No. 303 and it seems inappropriate to include those for two reasons. First, as the Minister explained in his conclusion on the last debate, subsequent clauses give Ofcom every opportunity to set out in detail quotas for regional programming outside the M25 for particular channels, and those refer separately to Channels 3, 4 and Five. Indeed, if the amendments are accepted, the clause would provide the opportunity for Ofcom to do that in relation to the quantity of programming and the number of production centres for each of those channels. That would be an acceptable way of dealing with matters subsequently. However, that seems inappropriate, because the clause ought to be about the channels focusing on their public service remit and on what is delivered to viewers. 
 Considering the matter from the remit of viewers rather than the process of production, amendments Nos. 347 and 393—and others—are better directed to clause 276 and subsequent clauses. Otherwise, they will confuse the issue of the process of production with the nature of the programming received by the viewer, which is what we should be focusing on as the central remit.

Simon Thomas: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but surely the issue is not quite as simple as that. It is not possible for Channel 3, as the regional broadcaster for the United Kingdom, entirely to
 divorce what is delivered to the viewer from the fact that it is a regional production. Its programming must reflect a region to meet the public sector remit. Although I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about the amendments, I do not think that he has encapsulated the reason why they are not relevant to clause 257.

Andrew Lansley: There is a risk that we will start to dance on pinheads. My point is not that the issues are divorced, but that the Bill addresses them in separate places, and it is better not to consider matters under clause 257 if they are subsequently explicitly addressed under clauses 276 et sequentia. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have tabled amendments that are designed to achieve specific purposes that relate to those clauses. I share with the Minister the view that those amendments would be better dealt with under those clauses than under clauses 256 or 257.
 However, I do not depart from the hon. Member for Ceredigion on the underlying point that he might press me on, which is that we need to be aware of how viewers perceive the channels that are licensed for a purpose, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is a co-signatory to amendment No. 303. Regional production might well be necessary to secure regional programming; I do not dispute that. However, in considering the remit of Channel 3, we do not want to get into the business of trying to set quotas for regional production. I think that Channel 3's remit should be narrowed down in terms of the nature of the channel that people watch. That is what I am trying to do through amendment No. 303. 
 I do not know the views of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on amendment No. 303; I wait to hear it. However, I urge them to find it acceptable, because it is not designed to impose additional burdens on Channel 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale quoted at length from Mr. Desmond's article in the Westminster Media Forum publication, and from what my hon. Friend says, it seems that Mr. Desmond was speaking of the sense in which Channel 3 is distinctive and has a distinctive remit, but is commercially desirable, and it would want to pursue that direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale then put this question to us: if it is in the commercial interests of Channel 3 to pursue regional and community diversity, why do we need to specify the need to do so in the Bill? Why do we not simply rest upon what is in the Bill, which mentions 
''high quality and diverse programming''?
 Why do we need to go further? 
 The answer is, of course, that the nature of legislation is not optimistic. We do not write legislation on the basis that everyone is going to behave well. We write legislation in the way that people should write contracts: although we may be ashamed that we should have to do so, we write it on the basis that things will break down or go wrong, that people will not do what they are supposed to do, and will not necessarily behave as we anticipate, and that circumstances, including commercial circumstances, can shift. 
 It is true that Channel 3—and other channels, although I am focusing on Channel 3—receives substantial benefits. We give Channel 3 access to frequency spectrum and specific free-to-air status. We give it must-carry obligations. We give it all those things, and we expect something in return, and it is important that we are clear in the Bill about what that is.

John Greenway: I am fascinated by my hon. Friend's argument, and I think that what he wants in return is the type of commitment demanded in his amendment, about which I have an open mind. I should remind him and the rest of the Committee that there is a substantial licence fee for the spectrum of Channel 3.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, Channel 3 companies pay for the spectrum among other things when they bid for the franchise. However, that is part of a general obligation. The purpose of clause 257 is not only to reflect what we understand to be the nature of the licence currently enjoyed by the Channel 3 network, but our expectations regarding Channel 3 licences in the future. In the previous debate, the hon. Member for North Devon made it clear that the amount that licence holders are willing to bid in future will be affected. If we were to construct the public service remit in a manner that was flagrantly uncommercial, we would run the risk of inadequate or very low bids for the franchise.
 I propose not imposing anything remotely like that burden, but something that is entirely consistent with what Channel 3 may well wish to pursue. The BBC has extended in just such a direction using its advantageous resources. The point is not that it is doing marginal and peripheral things using money that it has to spare, but, in my experience, that the BBC is using the resources available to it to extend market share. It is doing that successfully in relation to some regional and community-based culturally diverse programming. 
 Amendment No. 528 makes the same point as amendments Nos. 347 and 393 and would add nothing new that cannot be specified in subsequent clauses. It is therefore unnecessary to specify them in the remit. Amendment No. 467 is intended to meet much the same purposes as amendment No. 303. However, I fear that it has the presumably unintended, but perverse, effect of leaving out subsection (2). The amendment refers only to a public service remit for Channel 3, and therefore excludes a public service remit for Channel Five. The amendment should be rejected because it is defective and the debate should be confined to amendment No. 303. 
 Amendment No. 303, refers to 
''provision of a range of high quality and diverse programming''.
 Are those the right words, and should they apply equally to Channel 3 and Channel Five? I am surprised by the choice of words because the general duty of Ofcom stated in clause 3(1)(c) is 
''to secure the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of television and radio services which (taken as a whole) are both of high quality''
 and 
''calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests''.
 ''High quality'' is included in the definition, but there is no mention of ''diverse''. The public service remit for Channel 4 referred to in clause 257(3)(b) requires Channel 4 to produce programmes that appeal to the 
''tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society'',
 but there is no reference to the 
''variety of tastes and interests''
 that are to be met under the remits for Channel 3 and Channel Five. That is a deficiency. I might be proved wrong, but I do not believe that ''diverse'' has been defined elsewhere in the Bill, although I had better check clause 348, just in case—I cannot see it there, which is a relief. If ''diverse'' is not defined in that clause, why is it used in clause 257? 
 I am not sure whether my recollection is correct, but we have got on to broadcasting and I think that I am the first person to use the word ''genre''. I should get a point for that. One could argue that the ''diverse programming'' referred to in the clause relates to diversity in genres of programming. That may well be a mechanism by which one could appeal to a variety of tastes and interests, but it is not the only one. There is a risk in the definition of ''diverse''. It could mean anything—any combination of programming could be ''diverse programming''. 
 What do we want Channel 3 and Channel Five to do? The word ''diverse'' in the clause could indeed mean that different genres are required. Channel Five is a national channel, and trying to impose on it other forms of differentiation in order to secure the objective of reflecting a variety of tastes and interests may be inappropriate. Channel 3 is not like Channel Five. It has specific structures and obligations, which must be reflected in a different remit. The first part of amendment No. 303 separates Channel 3 and Channel Five. Leaving the public service remit for Channel Five in the form that the Government propose would then be fine. 
 If Channel 3 is to have a different remit, what should it look like? Trying to answer that question led me to use, in amendment No. 303. the words: 
''to reflect the tastes and interests of different communities and cultural traditions within nations and regions of the United Kingdom.''
 It will be obvious to hon. Members that that reference to ''cultural traditions'' could be held to duplicate the words of the remit for Channel 4. However, in so far as we reflect the tastes and interests of different communities, we do so not least to reflect cultural traditions. Doing that in relation to specific regions is quite important. 
 Channel 4 is a national channel that cannot offer a different service to each region. Cultural traditions in the different regions of the United Kingdom ought to be reflected by Channel 3 as well as by Channel 4. I am not suggesting that we should impose quotas, but it is reasonable that different traditions should be reflected. Amendment No. 303 sets the tastes and interests of different communities and cultural traditions in the context of the nations and regions of the United 
 Kingdom. That is different from Channel 4, which does so throughout the United Kingdom as a whole. 
 It would seem useful to steer Channel 3 in the direction of making distinctions among the viewing public. There is nothing in the amendment that would limit the way in which Channel 3 did that. If Ofcom saw Channel 3 as complementary to Channel 4, it would consider the relationship between the two channels, and consider whether, when taken together, they met the obligation to provide a variety of programming that reflected the tastes and interests of different communities and different cultural traditions around the United Kingdom.

Kim Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with this, because he sort of said it a few moments ago. The difficulty that the Committee will have with amendment No. 303 is the part that states:
''reflect the tastes and interests of different communities and cultural traditions.''
 I know what he is getting at, but he reminds me of the discussion that we had about where the M25 region is. The hon. Gentleman understands the commercial sensitivities of running a Channel 3 operation, but does he understand that the wording of his amendment could be interpreted in all sorts of different ways?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, the amendment could be interpreted in a number of different ways. However, it hinges on the reference to
''nations and regions of the United Kingdom.''
 It is possible to say that the reference to different communities and cultural traditions could relate to Wales, which has a different community with a different cultural tradition and which is a nation in the United Kingdom. The amendment hinges on differentiation by nations and regions. 
 I do not argue that the drafting of the amendment is necessarily perfect, but it cannot be argued that it is defective just because it could be open to different interpretations. The word ''diverse'' can be interpreted in any number of ways and might be equally defective, but narrowing down could make things too precise. There is a point between the word ''diverse'' and the reference to different communities and different nations and regions of the United Kingdom that properly reflects the distinct nature of the public service remit of Channel 3, which is clearly different from that of Channel Five.

Michael Fabricant: I was fairly sympathetic to the amendment until the Minister raised his interesting point. There is a large immigrant community in many parts of the United Kingdom, especially parts of the west midlands. By using the phrase
''different communities and cultural traditions within nations and regions of the United Kingdom''
 might not the amendment specifically exclude new immigrant communities? If not, does my hon. Friend think that the amendment would create an obligation to provide substantial amounts of programming for immigrant communities, which might well jeopardise the financial viability of a Channel 3 operator?

Andrew Lansley: The answer to the first question is no. The amendment would not preclude the provision of programming geared toward specific communities, including recently arrived communities. On the second question, I doubt whether commercial viability would be prejudiced. If one established a public service remit in such a form, there could not be a quota. That could develop only over time as Ofcom examined the way in which statements of programme policy and practice for Channel 3 were followed through. Ofcom would be able to report on that and make recommendations under clause 256—it could say that there was too much or too little programming, or that the right or the wrong balance had been struck. Under clause 256, Ofcom must have regard to costs and commercial implications.

Kim Howells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley: Let me respond to my hon. Friend, and then I will give way to the Minister.
 Channel 3's present activities illustrate one possible response to the requirement forming part of its remit. Anglia Television is the example that I know best. It is often able to divide the Anglian region and focus on the eastern side of the region, where there is a significant Asian community in and around Luton. That demonstrates the opportunity for a Channel 3 licence holder to target programming, which is probably in its commercial interest.

Michael Fabricant: I understand that, but everything has a cost, especially if one subdivides an ITV region. It is an unfortunate fact that popular programmes—we are not dealing solely with news and current affairs programmes—that star black actors, such as American television soaps shown in the United Kingdom, tend not to attract white audiences. That is a shame, but it is a fact. Would the obligation extend not only to current affairs programming, which I suspect is the programming by Anglia Television to which he referred, but to the production of soaps? My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale suggested that ''Emmerdale'' and ''Heartbeat'' reflect areas. What about a Bradford-based Asian soap?

Andrew Lansley: There is a risk that my hon. Friend will take me into ''EastEnders'' territory again, although I have not seen the programme recently and I have not watched it sufficiently to speak about it knowledgably. I understand that there is a debate about the extent to which ''EastEnders'' reflects the circumstances of an Afro-Caribbean family, but that has not, to my knowledge, affected the audience figures, which seem to be around the 14 million mark. The audience exists, so I do not agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's point—

Jim Murphy: Hon. Friend.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend—I thank the silent one.
 The theoretical debate about the structure of the amendment is as follows. It is impossible that one could construct an argument saying, ''Because the public service remit of Channel 3 says this, therefore the content of 'Crossroads' should be that.'' The two things are too far apart and there are too many 
 intermediate stages to be able to relate them directly. Too many proper, subjective, judgments would have to be made by the relevant Channel 3 management and by Ofcom, and those bodies would have to behave in a way that strikes me as irrational.

Parmjit Dhanda: I must remind the hon. Member for Lichfield of the quality of many programmes, such as ''The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air'' and ''The Cosby Show'', which were popular across the board. We do not say that British people would not watch American programmes because they feature American people, and I do not think that they would not watch programmes about black or Asian people.
 The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made an interesting point, but does he not feel that, because an ITV franchise must be aware of what is relevant locally, the amendment is unnecessary? One reason why Anglia aims its programming at the Asian community in Luton and Bedford is because it is aware of what is relevant to the people who live there and aware of that environment. There is no need for such a provision in the Bill.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who challenges me on the point that I made earlier. In setting out the remit of Channel 3, the objective should be to reflect its current best practice. I would have drafted the amendment wrongly had I attempted to impose on Channel 3 a structure of programming and activity that was against its commercial interests and contrary to its current best practice. I do not seek to do that. We should not include in the Bill a provision so vague that it has no genuine impact and hope that the other provisions of the Bill, or Ofcom's interpretation of clause 256 over time, will force Channel 3 to do what we want. It would be far better to make clearer our understanding of the nature of Channel 3 and its differentiation.

Kim Howells: I do not want to detain the Committee with too many interventions, but I have written down ''Monarch of the Glen'', which was a series that I enjoyed a lot as I did the ironing on Sunday night. That high-quality production was made, I believe, by a good independent company; it was commissioned by BBC Scotland, but it could have been commissioned by the Channel 3 companies. I am not sure where that programme stands in relation to the hon. Gentleman's desire to see particular cultures reflected in programming. Some might argue that that programme had something to do with the highlands of Scotland and its culture, whereas others would say that it was a complete fantasy and that it perpetuated a wholly inaccurate cultural image of Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman see what I am getting at? One can start to drift into difficult areas when trying to define what constitutes a real reflection of the culture of a region rather than a producer's fantasy, even though the latter might be massively entertaining.

Andrew Lansley: That is an interesting question, but it is not strictly relevant. Although Channel 3 could have made that programme, it was the BBC that did so. I suspect that Channel 3, had it made that programme, would have argued that it did reflect the different
 cultures of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, and we could have debated that, but a whole body of programming, rather than a single programme, would be needed to justify that argument. With respect to the Minister, the debate is much more about issues such as the subdivision of channels and the ability to offer programming that is particular to parts of regions, or that reflects the interests of, for example, specific ethnic minority groups within regions. That is a part of Channel 3's responsibility, and Channel 4 simply could not do it.
 I have talked for too long, but although I do not want to delay the Committee unduly, I wish to make another point. I do not insist that the wording of amendment No. 303 provides the right way to achieve the desired ends, but I am convinced that it is right to differentiate Channel 3 from Channel Five and to include in the Channel 3 remit the requirement that it should seek to meet a variety of tastes and interests in a way that reflects the diversity of the areas that it serves. I do not think that that requirement is included in the current public service remit for Channel 3, and it ought to be. I want the Minister to say, ''We might not accept this amendment, but we would accept one that moves in that direction.''

Simon Thomas: I support amendment No. 303, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire tabled it. However, I wish that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland were present, so that I could welcome the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire to the nationalist camp, as the amendment talks of the
''nations and regions of the United Kingdom.''
 That is an important phrase; it is reflected in the Independent Television Commission document to which the hon. Member for Ryedale referred, and it is part of the ecology of the broadcasting of Channel 3 in particular. 
 The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made a thoughtful contribution. It set out for the Minister the challenge that is offered by part of the Bill. The Bill is flawed: we cannot treat Channel 3 and Channel Five in the same way. It is clear that the public service remits that should be applied to each of them should be different. The reason for that is partly to do with reach. I am told that Channel 3 has 100 per cent. reach, while Channel Five has about 80 per cent.—it is not very common in west Wales, where it is difficult to receive outside Aberystwyth. The reason for that is also partly to do with audience share: Channel 3 often beats the BBC. It can easily achieve 25 or 33 per cent. of the audience. Although Channel Five has increased its audience share, it is still at about 8 per cent. 
 They are very different channels: we might recognise that when we come to discuss cross-media ownership later on in our scrutiny the Bill. Therefore, it is important that the Bill includes a specific public service remit for Channel 3 that reflects its role as the regional independent broadcaster for the United Kingdom. The exact wording to achieve that can be argued about, and I listened with interest to the debate between the Minister and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. The Minister made a fair point. I am 
 also unsure what ''cultural traditions'' means; does it refer to ''How Green Was My Valley'' in Wales and ''Last Of The Summer Wine'' in Yorkshire? Many kinds of stereotypes could be brought under the term ''cultural traditions''. 
 However, it is important that 
''the tastes and interests of different communities''
 and the 
''nations and regions of the United Kingdom''
 are reflected. 
 Those are the two most important elements that must be addressed in this part of the Bill. That is why I tabled my amendment and supported the Liberal Democrats' amendment—I wanted a belts-and-braces approach on this matter, because I thought that it was very important to get something through. However, the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is the best of the lot, and if the Minister were minded to agree to it, I would be happy to support it, and not to press my amendment to a Division. 
 The key point is that Channel Five is currently a niche broadcaster and Channel 3 is our independent regional broadcaster for the entire UK. We will discuss later whether there should be quotas—whether substantial words like that should be used with regard to programming and programme-making. The hon. Gentleman put it well when he said the clause does not cover regional programme-making elements, but only how viewers receive their Channel 3 service. As viewers see it in the round throughout the year, it must reflect their tastes and interests and the particular aspects of their region, such as a particular language community or an Asian or black community. Such interests must be brought across in the service. 
 I do not have great trust in what may be happening in the ownership of Channel 3. Perhaps I am too much of a sceptic. It is important to put in the Bill our expectations of regional, national and taste aspects of Channel 3. We cannot accept that that will just happen as of right. The hon. Member for North Devon said that a prospective purchaser or new owner of Channel 3 needs to know what he is buying into. Clever lawyers employed by rich people can certainly dance their way through this part of the Bill and say that it is just like Channel 5. Goodness knows what is portrayed after 10 pm on Channel Five, but no doubt it reflects the interests and taste of some people. It certainly does not reflect regional and national interests or tastes. 
 I hope that the Minister accepts the spirit of amendment No. 303. If the exact wording is not to his taste and does not reflect his regional aspects, perhaps he will return to the matter on Report. We must crack the problem. We cannot let the Bill go through with the same wording for Channel 3 and Channel Five. It will not sufficiently recognise the unique regional position of Channel 3 and the role that it plays in our public life.

Roger Gale: Order. I am seeking properly to construct within the confines of the timetabling that has been agreed circumstances in which the Committee
 can properly discuss all the clauses that have to be reached by not only the end of today, but the end of our sitting on next Tuesday morning. The Committee is debating remit at the moment. I expect that standards, which are covered by clauses 307 to 316, will be reached probably late on Thursday afternoon or next Tuesday morning. It is abundantly clear to all of us that those two issues are linked. I also know that hon. Members will wish to raise certain further issues that are relevant to the BBC.
 I shall not be in the Chair until after such discussions have taken place on Tuesday afternoon. I therefore propose to tell Mr. Atkinson that I have said to the Committee that, within common sense and good order, such debates shall range reasonably freely. I hope that that will enable members of the Committee, while dealing with individual clauses and amendments, to cover the appropriate issues, and that that will be acceptable to both the Minister and the Opposition.

Parmjit Dhanda: Without wanting to revisit all the arguments that were employed during the debate on clause 256, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and I tabled amendment No. 393 on regional programming and the M25. Regional programme production is a defining characteristic of ITV. No one would disagree that its advantages have been enormous. However, the strong heritage of ITV regional production is, in many respects, in decline and, worringly, under further threat. As ownership in ITV has merged, we have seen regional production slowing down, under-investment in regional programming, the withdrawal of some ITV companies from network production and a more narrow range of programme genres—I wanted to slip in that word, even though it is not the first time that it has been used today. Fewer programmes are being produced regionally and decisions and commissioning are increasingly being concentrated in London. There have also been large-scale redundancies and studio closures and, as I mentioned under the previous clause, that is of particular concern to the trade unions involved. The proposed merger of Granada and Carlton and the Bill's loosening of ownership regulations provide a potentially huge impetus for centralisation of production in ITV at the expense of the regions. That is an important point that was not touched on in our debate on the previous clause: four franchises made no programmes for the network in 2000. Tyne Tees TV's output suffered a collapse of 94 per cent. from 92 hours in 1994 to just six hours in 2000. Yorkshire Television's production shrunk from 204 hours to just 156 hours during the same period. In the light of that, ITV's regional production base will be secured only by strong regulatory requirements, hence amendment No. 393. I would argue that the amendment is strongly formulated and is the only one that would take into account the economic, as well as content, value of regional programming by requiring the channel to make a commitment to
''a substantial proportion of programmes made outside the M25''.
 We are looking beyond the benefits of viewers at those who work in the industry as well. This extra step would help to sustain jobs, ensure the future security 
 of skilled labour in the regions and take into account the spin-off effects of keeping jobs in the regions. 
 The ITC recently commissioned a big study into the value to regional economies of keeping the production of regional programmes in the regions themselves. It demonstrated that for every £1 spent on regional programmes, two-and-a-half times that amount was generated and put back into the local economy. In other words, the multiplier effect leads to ancillary social and economic benefits that the other amendments do not take into account in the same way. I hope that the Minister will give that full and proper consideration.

Nick Harvey: I support the amendments—especially amendment No. 303, because, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, amendment No. 467 is flawed in that it would inadvertently remove the remit from Channel Five.
 The purpose of amendment No. 528 is to examine Channel 3 as a network, rather than considering it only in terms of individual regional licences. Now that we are going to allow for the possibility of a single ITV company, I would instinctively have been more comfortable if the Bill had started by viewing Channel 3 as an entity. However, of course there is no guarantee that there will be a single ITV company just because it is allowed, so for the time being there is no choice other than for the Bill to be constructed in the way that it is.

Michael Fabricant: Is it not the case that even if ITV becomes a single company—and there is no definite projection that it will be sold, although it is likely—Ofcom will still grant individual licences, which will prevent the 24-hour networking that the hon. Gentleman mentions?

Nick Harvey: I agree entirely. I did not mean to suggest anything different. Nevertheless, in considering the remit, particularly on the basis to which the hon. Member for Ceredigion referred and I mentioned in relation to the previous group of amendments, we should bear in mind that a new American owner would need to understand from the top line what it is buying. That is why Channel 3's remit should include a regional commitment.
 I should like to return to the White Paper where the Government said that the ITV companies 
''should continue to have a key role in delivering public service broadcasting . . . Obligations will focus on the core requirements: a strong regional focus including regional production and commissioning, a diverse, high quality schedule including news and current affairs and original production, educational programmes, children's programmes, religious programmes and coverage of arts, science and international issues.''
 That is laudable stuff but it is a far cry—acres, light years away—from the flimsy little remit that the clause gives to Channel 3. In that respect the clause does not adequately give to the owner— 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.